Case law

Daniel Houlihan v. City of Chicago

871 F.3d 540 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2017

To thwart qualified immunity, the plaintiffs had to prove two things: “first, that the facts alleged describe a vi- olation of a protected right; and second, that this right was clearly established at the time of the defendant's … Cook County Sheriff’s Office—decided four years after the police department reassigned them—the Northern Dis- trict of Illinois granted qualified immunity after concluding that the law did not clearly establish that the security-special

Cindy Abbott v. Sangamon County

705 F.3d 706 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 29, 2013

Governmental actors performing discretionary func- tions are entitled to qualified immunity from suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … immunity on Travis’s excessive-force claim because he did not violate clearly established law.

Ronald Fosnight v. Robert Jones

41 F.4th 916 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2022

Qualified im- munity protects government officials from damages liability unless they “violate clearly established statutory or constitu- 3 We note for completeness that the Supreme Court has never authorized a Bivens action … The district court may entertain a qualified-immunity defense on a defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Albert Flenner and William Glover v. Michael F. Sheahan

107 F.3d 459 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Feb 12, 1997

The district court granted his motion, holding that Sheriff Sheahan was entitled to qualified immunity because the law concerning patronage dismissal of corree 1 tional officers was not clearly established in 1993, the time … “The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Novoselsky v. Brown

822 F.3d 342 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 10, 2016

Qualified Immunity on First Amendment Claim We turn next to Brown’s qualified immunity defense to Novoselsky’s § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim. … Qualified immunity protects government agents from liability for their actions so long as they did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Vose v. Kliment

506 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 26, 2007

Kliment and Rouse moved to dismiss the case, asserting that they were entitled to qualified immunity against Vose’s claims because the applicable law on the rights of government employees to speak out was not clearly established … Secondly, they claim that the rights Vose alleges were violated were not clearly established at the time of the relevant events. To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, we look to two issues.

Marcus Torry v. City of Chicago

932 F.3d 579 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2019

In any event, the court said, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the stop did not violate clearly established law. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from li- ability for civil damages as long as their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

John Crosetto v. State Bar of Wisconsin

12 F.3d 1396 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jan 24, 1994

Where the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, “the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the existence of the allegedly clearly established constitutional right.” Rakovich v. … Since Smay properly raised this defense, unless Plaintiffs can show that a sufficient consensus clearly established the existence of a violated constitutional right, Smay' will receive qualified immunity from Plaintiffs’

Lee v. Young

533 F.3d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2008

A two-part test is used to ascertain whether qualified immunity exists. First, the plaintiff must establish that the actions of the defendant violated his constitutional rights. Triad Associates, Inc. v. … Since this right was clearly established in 1998-1999, it was also clearly established during the relevant period of time here, 2001-2002.

Kathryn M. Zorzi v. County of Putnam, Philip H. Hansen, Former Sheriff of Putnam County, Donald Maggi, Sheriff of Putnam County

30 F.3d 885 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1994

“The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Rather, he claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity because count two does not set forth a substantive due process violation, or at least not one that is clearly established.

Edward Joseph X. Chapman v. George Pickett

586 F.2d 22 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Oct 30, 1978

Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to petitioners if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or should have … There can be no serious contention with the fact that the right to be free from disproportionate punishment has long been “clearly established.”

Justice v. Town of Blackwell

820 F.2d 238 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 29, 1987

he is entitled to qualified immunity. … Finally, the Town and Henkel contend that Cronin forfeited his qualified immunity by violating clearly established Wisconsin election law, Wis.Stats. § 6.92 et seq.

Thomas J. McDonnell v. Michael Cournia, Richard Menzel, Gary Moe, Thomas Christopher

990 F.2d 963 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 7, 1993

To determine whether an official’s conduct violates clearly established law requires a two-step inquiry. First, the plaintiff must show that the law was clearly established when the challenged conduct occurred. … In this case, then, qualified immunity shields the defendant police officers from McDonnell’s damage action if “a reasonable officer could have believed [McDonnell’s arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law

D.Z. Ex Rel. Thompson v. Buell

796 F.3d 749 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Aug 6, 2015

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for damages if their actions did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Neither party disputes that D.Z.’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizure was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Howell v. Smith

853 F.3d 892 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff demonstrates that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and that the right was “clearly established” at the … established law.”

David L. Canedy, Jr. v. Peggy Boardman, Jeffrey P. Endicott, Karen Radtke, and John Bell

91 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Jul 19, 1996

As the district court noted, qualified immunity was therefore available as a complete defense. … The district court properly applied the defense of qualified immunity here.

Tina Ewell v. Eric Toney

853 F.3d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2017

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … To defeat the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the defend- ant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time so that it would have been clear to a reasonable

Carvajal v. Dominguez

542 F.3d 561 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Sep 5, 2008

An appeal of an order denying qualified immunity is a well-established application of this doctrine: “A district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to- the extent that it turns on an issue of law is an appealable … If not, the inquiry ends, and the officer has qualified immunity. If yes, then the second step is whether the violated right was clearly established.

Richard E. Maul v. Dr. Evan Constan, Anthony Metzcus, and Richard Gore

928 F.2d 784 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Apr 1, 1991

The defendants clearly did not press a qualified immunity defense in any pretrial motions, at the pretrial conference, or at trial. … Aquino, 863 F.2d 1037 , 1041 n. 5 (1st Cir.1988), which says that a defendant “who has appropriately pleaded the affirmative defense of qualified immunity may establish his right to immunity at any point in the proceedings

Joseph H. Levenstein v. Bernard Salafsky, Patricia A. Gill, and David C. Broski, in Their Individual Capacities

164 F.3d 345 · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Dec 16, 1998

Ill Public officials are entitled to qualified immunity from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … That takes us to the second part of the immunity inquiry: whether the applicable constitutional standards were clearly established at the time in question.